| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version? |
| Date: | 2017-08-01 00:17:16 |
| Message-ID: | 8923.1501546636@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> If we need to fix things so that AC_PATH_PROG will honor a non-path
> input value, then let's do that. But let's not make the build system
> shakier/less reproducible than it is already.
> I suggest that we could inject logic like this:
> if VARIABLE-is-set-and-value-isn't-already-absolute; then
> VARIABLE=`which $VARIABLE 2>/dev/null`
> fi
> in front of the existing logic for AC_PATH_PROG(VARIABLE,...).
> Maybe "which" isn't the best tool for the job, not sure.
Concretely, how about something like the attached?
BTW, I haven't done it here, but I wonder whether we should not make
PGAC_PATH_PROGS invoke AC_ARG_VAR on the target variable, so that
configure knows that it should be treated as affecting results caching.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| ac-path-prog-fix.patch | text/x-diff | 9.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-08-01 00:22:53 | Re: Fix a typo in pg_upgrade/info.c |
| Previous Message | Steve Singer | 2017-08-01 00:09:52 | Re: 10 beta docs: different replication solutions |